What is the Biodiversity Act? What changes has the Lok Sabha cleared in the law?

 

The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on July 25, bringing in a number of changes to the over 20-year old Biological Diversity Act of 2002.

Lok Sabha on Tuesday (July 25) gave its approval to a Bill to amend some provisions of the Biological Diversity Act of 2002. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill seeks to address concerns of several central ministries, state governments, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders, regarding the implementation of the 20-year-old law that is meant to preserve the country’s biological diversity and to ensure its sustainable use.

Among other things, the amendments aim to encourage Indian systems of medicine like Ayurveda, attract more foreign investment in the preservation and commercial utilisation of India’s biological resources, and simplify and streamline processes so that it is easy for everyone to comply with its provisions.

What is the biodiversity law, and why does India need one?

Biological diversity refers to all kinds of life forms — animals, plants and microorganisms — their gene pools, and the ecosystems that they inhabit. The 2002 Act was a response to the global need to protect and conserve biological resources, which are under threat due to human activities.

The extent of the damage was highlighted, much later, in a landmark 2019 report by the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a scientific body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

That report issued a stark warning: about 1 million animal and plant species, out of a total of about 8 million, were facing the threat of extinction. About 75 per cent of the Earth’s land surface and 66 per cent of the oceans had been “significantly altered”, it said.

But efforts to protect biological diversity had begun much earlier. In 1994, countries including India had agreed to a Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international framework agreement similar to the more famous one on climate change. There was a general agreement on three things: (i) that indiscriminate use of biological resources needed to be halted, (ii) that sustainable use of these resources, for their medicinal properties for example, needed to be regulated, and (iii) that people and communities helping in protecting and maintaining these resources needed to be rewarded for their efforts.

India’s Biological Diversity Act of 2002 was enacted by the government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee with these objectives in mind. It set up a National Biodiversity Authority as a regulatory body, and prescribed the conditions in, and purposes for, which biological resources could be utilised. The purposes mainly related to scientific research and commercial use.

So why did the need for amendments to the law arise?

Over the years, several stakeholders, like those representing the Indian system of medicine, the seed sector, pharmaceutical and other industries, and the research community, have pointed out that some of the provisions of the 2002 law restricted their activities, and thus needed to be modified.

In addition, countries agreed to the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, an important international agreement under the CBD, that contained an Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism.

Under this mechanism, biodiversity-rich countries needed to provide access to their biological resources to those wanting to use it for research or commercial reasons, and the user agencies, in turn, were mandated to share the benefits of their use with the local communities. This access and benefit-sharing works at both the domestic and the international levels.

Over the last few years, the government too has been trying to encourage traditional systems of medicine, all of which rely on these biological resources.

What amendments have been proposed in the biodiversity law?

The Bill passed on Tuesday makes several amendments to the 2002 Act, addressing most of the concerns raised by the practitioners of traditional systems of medicine, the seed sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Certain categories of users of biological resources, like practitioners of Indian systems of medicine, have been exempted from making payments towards the access and benefit-sharing mechanism.

Companies registered in India and controlled by Indians are now treated as Indian companies, even if they have foreign equity or partnership, thereby reducing the restrictions on them. Provisions have been included to speed up the approval process in cases of use of biological resources in scientific research, or for filing of patent applications.

The penalty provisions for wrongdoing by user agencies have been rationalised.

Source: Indian Express, 27/07/23

Double trouble

 From dams to expressways to coal-fired power plants, India’s biodiversity is being battered by the development juggernaut

There’s a new trend in the world of conservation. On the one hand, countries in the Global South are advancing their development agenda with a massive thrust towards building infrastructure. On the other, they are tightening their grip on biodiversity in line with the goals set by the Conference of Parties last year. Both approaches bulldoze local communities that have always conserved forests.

In India, the paradox of development and conservation is quietly unfolding around forests. Call it a double whammy: communities get evicted both by development and conservation. Neither approach sees locals as integral to the landscape. For instance, the country went into a collective ecstasy when cheetahs were reintroduced in the Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh. Few cared about the eviction of tribals. This is not all; around the same area, several infrastructure projects have been unleashed to showcase development.

Kuno is but one example. The disregard for taking communities along is stark. Otherwise, how is it that there isn’t one example of locals being roped in for conservation? Take a look at every major protected area, you’ll find both notions going hand in hand, much to the detriment of communities, with the brunt being borne largely by scheduled tribes who live amidst some of the pristine forests.

From dams to expressways to coal-fired power plants, India’s biodiversity is being battered by the development juggernaut. The same goes for mindless conservation projects that do not factor in the locals inhabiting the ecosystem. The latest strategy adopted by the different states and the Centre is to carve out smaller conservation and community reserves instead of creating big national parks or sanctuaries. The former evokes less opposition and also allows authorities to push for infrastructure projects if needed in those very landscapes they aspire to conserve.

The protected area database (http://www.wiienvis. nic.in/Database/Protected_ Area_854.aspx), throws up a startling development: India hasn’t really seen an increase in sanctuaries and national parks in the last few years. But there’s a burst of small community and conservation reserves — terms denoting protected areas acting as buffer zones or connectors and migration corridors between established national parks or sanctuaries. These categories were first introduced in the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act of 2002 “because of reduced protection in and around existing or proposed protected areas due to private ownership of land, and land use”. Why this sudden tweak in strategy?

One plausible reason could be that India is wedded to the ambitious spatial targets set by CoP to place nearly 30 per cent of the world’s land and water under formal protection by 2030. This will be seen as a gauge to measure success, never mind the disregard for human rights. Where can you seek to expand the forests or biodiversity? Obviously where protected forests still exist.

An overwhelmingly large population lives within and near protected areas in the Global South, including India. They invest in and contribute to the economy of the commons equally. Most of these are indigenous people using forest resources for livelihood and sustenance. The double whammy of infrastructure projects and expansion of protected areas to meet spatial conservation targets don’t augur well for them. In the long run, it hurts conservation goals too because they pitch the two against each other. That’s one reason why locals went on a rampage near the Pench National Park in Madhya Pradesh after a tiger attacked and killed a human.

It is high time India reviewed its myopic approach and roped local communities into conservation of protected areas to avert a million potential conflicts

Jaideep Hardikar

Source: The Telegraph, 16/12/22

All creatures great and small

On the joy of reporting on new species of plants and animals.

Every year on World Environment Day, the Botanical Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India, set up in the colonial era in Kolkata to record the flora and fauna of the country, publish a list of new species of animals and plants discovered the previous year.

About seven years ago, when I began visiting these organisations as a reporter, I found it difficult to get the scientists and taxonomists to explain their work in common parlance to me. I had no formal training in zoology or botany and was full of questions and doubts about the scientific jargon in their explanations. But what I funnily found as difficult was convincing them that what appeared as routine work to them could in fact be of interest to common people.

For instance, in 2015, the Zoological Survey updated its list of raptors (birds of prey) in India. I was interested in knowing how many of the world’s raptors were found in the country. It turned out that India was home to 106 species of raptors, which is 18% of the number of species found in the world. These included raptors that can only be found in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Similarly, I found out that there exists a new species of banana, which is edible and sweet and with orange coloured pulp. The scientist was not convinced that this species, found in a tropical rainforest on the Little Andaman Islands, would be of interest to anyone but scientists. It turns out that the story was interesting enough to make it to the Civil Services Examination in the form of a question later.

Over numerous conversations with taxonomists over the years, I realised that every new discovery of a plant or an animal species had the possibility of becoming a news story, not only because it would reveal something new to the world, but also expand our knowledge beyond flagship species that always make it to the news. The publications of these survey organisations are a treasure trove, opening a floodgate to fascinating, weird and exciting information about India’s biodiversity. For instance, I was excited to discover that water striders have appendages that are designed to enable them to walk on water. Similarly, the discovery of several ginger and balsam species in the Northeast highlights the importance of these biogeographic zones.

A single new discovery on the basis of morphological features or genetic diversity highlights the importance of conservation. Many species may be lost without ever being discovered. It also shows us the importance of ecological hotspots such as the Western Ghats, the Himalayas, and the Northeast, where most of these discoveries are made.

The fact that both these organisations are headquartered in Kolkata is useful to me as I am able to interact with scientists directly. The principle I follow is that I write a story only after details of the discovery are published in a science journal or a book and are available in the public domain.

For reporters on every ‘beat’, every assignment is a dot on a learning curve. For me, it has been a unique experience. When the news is otherwise almost always about losses — of lives, biodiversity — the thrill of publishing stories on gains — of new species and the ways in which they add value to the ecosystem — is of a different kind.

Source: The Hindu, 1/11/2019

Biodiversity in the time of deluge

As it weathers repeated floods, Kerala needs to take steps to protect its fragile ecology

In mid-August 2018, Kerala experienced severe floods and is still struggling to deal with their devastating impact. It is a matter of deep concern that, a year later, the State is facing a similar situation. This only shows that there is a considerable human-induced natural imbalance in the State, making it vulnerable to the vagaries of climate change.

Such floods impact the poorest strata of the society the most, causing a loss of lives, livelihood options and assets. They also place an enormous burden on the government in terms of reconstruction budgets. In this context, a broader assessment of floods from a ‘sustainable development’ perspective, by limiting economic growth options to within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, is the need of the hour.

True, the root cause of such floods, not only in Kerala but elsewhere, is the high precipitation levels. However, one cannot discount the role of anthropogenic factors like unscientific development and over-exploitation of nature in aggravating the damages.

Impact of climate change

In recent decades, the global climate has been changing in an unpredictable manner. As per an IPCC report, the Global Green House Gases emissions grew by 70% between 1970 and 2004. Global warming has had critical effects on the hydrological cycle and water is the primary medium through which the climate change impacts trickle down to the people.

The changing precipitation alters the hydrological systems, resulting in floods and droughts in different regions. With the certainty that climate change is already impacting most countries, there is no option but to take adequate precautions through dam management and timely public alerts.

In the case of Kerala, a structural transformation and changing patterns of land use are affecting its environment. Agriculture is becoming insignificant (11.3% of State GDP) and services (63.1%) and industry (25.6%) sectors dominate the State’s economy. Further, a high population density — as per the 2011 census, it was 860 persons per sq. km, much higher than the Indian average of 382 — the shift from a joint family system to a single-family one and a greater inflow of money, particularly from Gulf countries, has resulted in an increased construction of luxurious houses and resorts.

The government, on its part, has also been developing extensive infrastructure to support the booming services and industry sectors.

Speaking of construction, it is important to take the appropriate decision on the type and size of the structure, its location, materials it proposes to use, and permissible damages it will cause to the nature. One cannot just replicate the Gulf model of construction in Kerala’s fragile and ecologically sensitive landscapes. Land transactions suggest that people in the State have bought land from farmers over the decades not for cultivation, but for construction. If this trend continues, vast tracts of paddy fields and other low-lying places will get converted to plots or buildings. A loss in wetland area will naturally impact the State’s ability to handle floods.

People fail to account for the damage done to natural ecosystems while estimating losses suffered due to natural disasters. Floods also wash away top soil and substantial biodiversity of the area, resulting in a reduced river-water flow, death of earthworms and spread of viral and bacterial diseases among crops. There is, at present, a lack of clarity on how best these natural assets could be restored. However, the urgency to devise suitable corrective measures has never been greater.

The writer is a Chennai-based researcher working in the areas of environment and sustainable development

Source: The Hindu, 14/08/2019

A case for Commons sense

There needs to be a review of how biodiversity and natural resources are governed  

When 196 countries met at Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, last November for the 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a key question on top of the agenda was how to govern biological resources (or biodiversity) at different levels for the world’s sustainable future.

The meeting had come at a significant time: it was the CBD’s 25th year of implementation, countries had approximately 350 days to meet global biodiversity targets, and there was the backdrop of a damning report that humans have mismanaged biodiversity so badly that we have lost 60% of resources (which can never be recouped). Finally, there was growing concern on how the Convention’s objectives of conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits were being compromised, including by the parties themselves.

For thousands of years, humans have considered natural resources and the environment as a global public good, with communities having diligently managed these resources using the principle of ‘Commons’.

In simple terms, these are a set of resources such as air, land, water and biodiversity that do not belong to one community or individual, but to humanity. All developments we see in the establishment of civilisations across the world as well as agricultural development feeding the world today are a result of such ‘Commons’ being managed by communities for centuries.

Then came the urge of those with money and power to privatise these resources for individual prosperity in the form of property management principles, intellectual property rights and others. In one form the CBD — a multi-lateral environmental agreement that has provided legal certainty to countries through the principle of sovereign rights over biodiversity — also contributed to states now owning the resources, including their rights on use and management.

Today, states control and manage biodiversity with strict oversight of who can use what and how. The intent of the CBD and having sovereign rights was to manage resources better. But the results of such management have been questionable. A key reason cited is that ‘Commons’ and common property resource management principles and approaches are ignored and compromised.

Why ‘Commons’?

According to estimates, a third of the global population depends on ‘Commons’ for their survival; 65% of global land area is under ‘Commons’, in different forms. At least 293,061 million metric tonnes of carbon (MtC) are stored in the collective forestlands of indigenous peoples and local communities. This is 33 times the global energy emissions in 2017. The significance of ‘Commons’ in supporting pollination (the cost estimated to be worth $224 billion annually at global levels) cannot be overlooked.

In India, the extent of ‘Common’ land ranges between 48.69 million and 84.2 million hectares, constituting 15-25% of its total geographical area. ‘Common’-pool resources contribute $5 billion a year to the incomes of poor Indian households. Around 77% of India’s livestock is kept in grazing-based or extensive systems and dependent on ‘Commons’ pool resources. And 53% of India’s milk and 74% of its meat requirements are met from livestock kept in extensive ‘Common’ systems.

Despite their significance, ‘Commons’ in India have suffered continued decline and degradation. National Sample Survey Office data show a 1.9% quinquennial rate of decline in the area of ‘Common’ lands, though microstudies show a much more rapid decline of 31-55% over 50 years, jeopardising the health of systemic drivers such as soil, moisture, nutrient, biomass and biodiversity, in turn aggravating food, fodder and water crises. As of 2013, India’s annual cost of environmental degradation has been estimated to be Rs. 3.75 trillion per year, i.e. 5.7% of GDP according to the World Bank.

Why the concern?

‘Commons’ becoming uncommon is a major socio-political, economic and environmental problem. While the state can have oversight over resource management, keeping people away from using and managing ‘Commons’ is against effective governance of ‘Commons’.

The sovereign rights provided for, legally, under the CBD should not be misunderstood by the state as a handle to do away with ‘Commons’-based approaches to managing biodiversity, land, water and other resources.

Current discussions under the United Nations should focus on how and why ‘Commons’ have been negatively impacted by progressive pronouncements to save the earth and people.

Another key concern is the changing socio-political impact of migration. Gone are the days when we can consider ‘Commons’ as resources relevant only for rural communities. ‘Commons’ are now a major provider of livelihood options for both urban and peri-urban populations. The relevance of ‘Commons’ impacting urban dwellers cannot be overlooked with more urbanisation happening.

Approaches for the future

There needs to be a review of current governance of biodiversity and natural resources. After 18 years of action to reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity, it is very likely that the same 196 countries will meet in 2020 to apologise to the world for having failed to meet the objectives of the convention.

In addition to seeking more money, time and capacities to deal with biodiversity and natural resource management, we need to focus on three specific approaches: one, to re-introduce more strongly, the management and governance principles of ‘Commons’ approaches into decision-making and implementation of conservation, use and benefit sharing action; two, to use Joseph Schumpeter’s approach of creative destruction to put resource management in the hands of the people; and three, to re-look at Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize winning principles of dealing with ‘Commons’.

The time for corrective approaches and action is now.

Balakrishna Pisupati, currently working on the promise of ‘Commons’, is Chairperson, Forum for Law, Environment, Development and Governance (FLEDGE) and former Chief of Biodiversity, Land Law and Governance at the United Nations Environment Programme

Source: The Hindu, 13/02/2019

Endangered species are key to our survival

Animal, plant and marine biodiversity keeps our ecosystems functional.

Last week, India submitted its sixth national report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The report was a mixed one: While the country is on track to meet most of its national biodiversity targets, the bad news is that the list of animal species from the country under the international ‘red list’ in the critically endangered, endangered and threatened categories has been increasing over the years. It is clear that there is severe stress on biodiversity and wild habitats. The report states that India is working on preventing the extinction of species by developing a landscape- and seascape-based approach. This aims at holistic, systemic approaches to integrate biodiversity concerns with social and economic values and development aspirations. The endangered species (birds and animals) in conservation priority include the Asian wild buffalo, Asiatic lion, Brow-antlered deer or Sangai, Dugong, Edible Nest swiftlet, Gangetic river dolphin, Great Indian bustard, Hangul, Indian rhino or Great one-horned rhinoceros, Jerdon’s courser, Malabar civet, Marine turtles, Nicobar megapode, Niligiri tahr, snow leopard, swamp deer and vultures.

The stress on India’s wildlife is increasing by the day. Almost every other day, there are reports of cases of man-animal conflict, thanks to the increasing human population and urbanisation. Just as often, there are reports of or animal deaths from accidents because project developers don’t take into account animal corridors while building infrastructure. Wildlife crime is also becoming a key threat due to the increased demand for wildlife derivatives ranging from tiger and leopard bones to pangolin scales and bear bile. India recorded 460 leopard deaths in 2018, the highest mortality rate of the big cat species in the country in the last four years, the Wildlife Protection Society of India said in December.

How does the loss of species alter ecosystems? The loss of iconic species is a tragedy with broad and deep impact. Animal, plant and marine biodiversity keeps ecosystems functional. Healthy ecosystems allow us to survive, get enough food to eat and make a living. When species disappear or fall in number, ecosystems and people — especially the world’s poorest — suffer. A recent study published in Nature reveals the extinction of plant or animal species from extreme environmental change, which we are witnessing now, increases the risk of an “extinction domino effect” that could annihilate all life on Earth.

Unfortunately, as this paper reported earlier this year, India might not meet the international target of identifying wildlife and marine-protected areas by 2020, making the challenge of conserving species much more difficult.

Source: Hindustan Times, 4/01/2019